On 10/6/12 12:50 PM, "Simon Josefsson" <[email protected]> wrote: > >Thanks, now I understand better. I would feel more comfortable if there >were a precise reference to what "well-formed serialization" means, >especially since there is a MUST here. It ought to be possible to >determine algorithmically whether something conforms or not. Sometimes >I get the impression that "well-formed" just refers to syntactical >correctness, whereas namespace considerations are more semantic.
Actually namespaces extend the notion of syntax in XML, so they're not just semantic. When you parse while namespace-aware, there are normative rules for that grammar that include having namespaces declared properly. I think you probably want to reference the notion of "namespace well-formed", so my suggested text could be adjusted to include that instead of just "well-formed". http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208/#Conformance >If there is a suitable reference to some XML standard, that is probably >better. See above. -- Scott _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
